Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[Mauro]

Now these are the 'rules' for the text generated by the app. 

These would be a model for the original Voynichese text in the MS. 

Howevever, how does the real text behave?

That it is different for a few different sections isn't a major problem in my opinion, especially if there were indeed several scribes, whose roles may have been more than just copying...

The differences in the sections of the real VMS are not a problem at all for Torsten's model, which on the contrary explains them quite neatly by having the parameters varying in time (*). Also, I agree with Torsten that many statistical differences are irrelevant, from his paper:

Of course, it is possible to pinpoint quantitative differences between the real VMS and the used facsimile text (most likely any facsimile text). An example is the quanti- tative deviation of the <q >-prefix distribution from the original VMS text. (...) We deliberately did not fine-tune the algorithm to pick an “optimal” sample for this presentation. Such a strategy is by itself questionable.

However there are some other statistical differences which, in my opinion, are much harder to explain and decidedly not what the real Voynich looks like (not that I can prove it). I gave examples in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of the "This Famous Medieval Book May be a Hoax" thread. All these differences cannot be accounted for by tuning the parameters, as instead is conceivable for the <q>-prefix distribution in the above quote (ie. by increasing the probability 'qo' will be added as a prefix). They instead need additional novel rules (additional parameters), which make the model less appealing the more they are (and I fear, but yet again cannot prove, a lot of rules would indeed be needed). Also, some of these parameters/rules seem to carry across with little change along the whole manuscript, and they are weird (see 'chodaiin' vs. 'oldaiin' in post #29), which is hard to explain on a background of freely (and widely) time-varying parameters. I understand a scribe can easily keep in his mind the rule < 'n' almost always terminates a word> (**) for a whole meaningless book, but I find it improbable for < 'chodaiin' is much preferred over 'oldaiin' >. I may be wrong of course.
 

(*) one could have time-varying parameters also if writing meaningless text using a proper rulebook (just change the rulebook), but Torsten's model fits better to a scenario where everything is done inside the mind of the scribe, the 'rulebook' being his intuitive feeling of what Voynichese words should look like.

(**) which also should be added to Torsten's model, it definetly generates too many 'aiinar', 'aiinal', 'danol' ...